Court mandates Family Court, Puducherry, to personally engage with minor children and parents before deciding custody, highlighting welfare of children as paramount
In a significant judgment dated October 13, 2026, the Madras High Court, presided over by Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, quashed the Family Court, Puducherry's order rejecting the mother's plea for interim custody of her two minor children. The case, Roobini v. J. Ajay Ensteen Raj, brought before the High Court by the petitioner mother, involved a dispute over custody following matrimonial discord.
The Family Court had dismissed the petitioner's applications seeking the immediate handover and interim custody of the minor children pending the disposal of the Guardian Original Petition (GOP No.4 of 2026). The lower court's decision was primarily based on the report of the Child Welfare Committee and certain Supreme Court precedents, which found that granting custody to the mother would not be in the best interest of the children.
However, the High Court found this approach flawed and legally untenable. The Court underscored that in matters of child custody, the welfare of the minor children is the paramount consideration and the Court must personally call and interact with the children to ascertain their views and emotional well-being. The High Court observed that the Family Court erred in mechanically relying solely on the Child Welfare Committee's report without conducting any personal interaction or inquiry into the children's preferences and circumstances.
Justice Anand Venkatesh elucidated that custody cases differ fundamentally from cases involving property or other material assets. The Court noted that custody disputes demand a more sensitive and child-centric approach, requiring judicial officers to "get into the shoes of the parents" and understand the child's mind through direct communication. The report from any committee or third party can only serve as corroborative material and cannot substitute the Court's own inquiry.
The High Court also commented on the Family Court's reliance on Supreme Court judgments that emphasize that children are neither mere chattels nor toys for parents. While these judgments were correctly cited, the Court held that their true application necessitates that the Court must first engage with the children personally before issuing any custody orders.
Consequently, the High Court set aside the Family Court's order and remanded the matter back for reconsideration. The Family Court was directed to conduct a thorough inquiry by personally interacting with the children and the parents within a period of four weeks. Additionally, the Court instructed the Family Court to consider granting visitation rights to the mother, particularly in relation to the younger female child aged about two years. The petitioner was to be allowed to meet the children at the Mediation Centre attached to the Family Court, Puducherry, to maintain the mother-child relationship during the pendency of the case.
This judgment reinforces the principle that the best interests and welfare of the child are the core guiding factors in custody proceedings and that courts must adopt a child-sensitive approach, ensuring children's voices and welfare are directly considered in judicial decisions.
Bottom Line:
Custody of minor children - Welfare of children is paramount - Family Court must personally interact with children and parents before deciding interim custody - Court cannot mechanically rely only on Child Welfare Committee report.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Guardians and Wards Act, 1890
Roobini v. J.Ajay Ensteen Raj, (Madras) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3001780
